© All Rights Reserved

23 views

© All Rights Reserved

- 1-s2.0-0306261980900458-main
- Whittle Introduction Tutorial
- Operations and Finance Interface
- Man Simulation 1
- PAPER265.PDF
- DocumentASSF
- chp7_2
- New Microsoft Office PowerPoint Presentation
- Asm Method
- estimarea incertitudinii microbiologie
- Cad
- A Newton Optimal Power Flow Program for Ontario Hydro EMS
- runall
- Sprengel Ford
- Medical Diagnosis Classification
- Before Optimization_ Design Space Exploration
- Effect of Non Uniformity Factors and Assignment Factors on Errors in Charge Simulation Method With Point Charge Model
- An Adaptive Differential Evolution Algorithm for Reactive Power Dispatch
- Operation Research
- h5. PBSD_Presentation.pdf

You are on page 1of 6

D Whittle1 and A Bozorgebrahimi2

ABSTRACT

The authors have developed and tested a technique that leverages some of

the statistical properties of conditionally simulated models and the

technical characteristics of Lerchs-Grossmann pits. The result is not one,

but a nested set of pits, which are named Hybrid Pits in this paper, each

of which has a definable statistical characteristic, which ultimately

reflects risk.

In terms of application of these Hybrid Pit designs, one further element

is introduced, that being the propensity for knowledge to increase over

time. At the time of planning, a certain amount of orebody data is

available, leading to an estimable degree of uncertainty in the model. As

time passes and mining progresses, the amount of information increases

(due to additional drilling, etc) so the degree of model uncertainty should

decrease. This paper includes an explanation of how the hybrid set of pits

can be used as design guides to allow a degree of risk avoidance,

associated with the higher uncertainty in early times.

The benefit of applying this methodology is a managed reduction in

risk, contributing to higher project values.

INTRODUCTION

In applying Lerchs-Grossmann (LG) pit optimisation (Lerchs

and Grossmann, 1965) to an orebody model, you are applying a

process that will guarantee to find the optimal pit outline that

maximises the dollar value, for a given input orebody model and

a given set of economic and geotechnical conditions. The LG

method can only be applied to a single orebody model and

cannot directly take account of uncertainty associated with that

model.

Conditional simulation has emerged as a methodology to

provide more meaningful models of orebodies, taking into

account the uncertainty inherent in the sampling and

interpolation process, and providing multiple representative

models for any given set of data.

The question that arose early in the development of

conditional simulation is, how does one use the additional

information that the process provides, to better design mines?

Van Brunt and Rossi (1997) describe the general nature of

conditionally simulated models and their application in mine

design, and describe a construct and an analysis method that are

both relied upon in this paper. These are:

described above (Van Brunt and Rossi, 1999) but extended to

include the evaluation of each simulated model against each of

the multiple LG pits. The objective of this approach was to find

the LG pit that delivered the highest average dollar value when

evaluated against the full set of simulations.

Existing methods involve the generation of optimal pits, each

for a separate model. The value of these methods revolves around

the way in which the multiple optimal pits are generated and

evaluated. In each case, the pit that is finally chosen will be an

LG pit that has been generated for a single model:

kriged model or E-Type model, described by Van Brunt and

Rossi (1999); or

(2003).

In early 2000, one of the authors (Whittle) commenced work

on a methodology that would lead to the creation of pits that

were directly influenced by a set of conditionally simulated

models, and produced some preliminary software specifications

to enable the technique to be developed. The expectation at the

time was that methodology, called Hybrid Pits in this paper,

would provide a useful mechanism for relating the variance

information inherent in conditionally simulated resource models,

into a Reserve context.

In March 2004, Whittle undertook the completion of the Set

Theory model for hybrid pits, which provides mathematical

rigour to the ideas that were hitherto based on intuition. Having

then a sound theoretical basis for hybrid pits, the next step was to

trial the technique using a small database.

Dr Bozorgebrahimi joined Gemcom Software International Inc

in June 2004, as a Business Analyst Mining Engineer, the same

office as Whittle. With Bozorgebrahimis training and experience

in conditional simulation, the opportunity to collaborate on this

next phase of the development of the hybrid pits concept

emerged. Whittle and Bozorgebrahimi immediately commenced

work on the project. The trial was successful, leading to

refinement of, and support for the mathematical models.

HYBRID PITS

exist; and

models.

Van Brunt and Rossi (1999) expand on their earlier work and

describe the generation of optimal pit shells for each of a set of

simulated models. Dimitrakopoulos, Farrelly and Godoy (2001)

extend the application of the Van Brunt and Rossi (1999) method

including analysis techniques described in the context of a case

involving 50 simulations of a typical disseminated low-grade

epithermal quartz breccia-type gold deposit.

1.

MAusIMM, Whittle

International Inc.

Product

Manager,

2.

International Inc.

Gemcom

Software

being an equally probable estimate of the real resource. It is

possible to generate optimal pit outlines for each of these

orebody models using the Lerchs-Grossmann method (Lerchs

and Grossmann, 1965), where each pit is optimal for its

corresponding orebody model, meaning:

structure arcs in the graph model; and

The value of the pit can then be estimated by applying the

whole family of models to the pit and recalculating the $ value

(Dimitrakopoulos, 2003). However, the optimality of the

Lerchs-Grossmann (LG) pit relates to the individual orebody

model that was used in its generation, rather than to the family of

pits. In the creation of the shape of the pit, there was no account

taken of the family of models.

399

The authors propose the use of hybrid pits, which are derived

from the family of pits that are generated from the family of

orebody models. The hybrid pits are derived from LG pits,

are technically feasible and have specific probabilistic

characteristics. In order to describe the derivation of the hybrid

pits, it is necessary to establish certain principles, and Set Theory

provides a useful framework for doing this.

Let the Universal Set be the set of blocks in a block model

framework.

Universal Set U

optimal for simulation a}

optimal for simulation b}

optimal for simulation c}

optimal for simulation d}, etc

The sets defined above will be referred to as the o-sets

(original sets representing LG pits for single simulations), to

make the distinction between this type of set and other types of

sets that will be discussed.

In o-set A, for any block x, it can be said that the set includes

all the blocks that must be mined if x is to be mined. This is true

because the application of the Lerchs-Grossmann algorithm,

through which the set was defined, requires it to be true. The

same can be said for o-sets B, C, D, etc.

Let us call the set of all blocks that must be mined if x is

mined, X. It is true to say that for any given x, X is unique. There

cannot be two sets of blocks that satisfy the condition of needing

to be mined if x is mined.

any combination of o-sets will lead to a set that represents a

feasible pit.

An illustration of a union of three pits is shown in Figure 2. In

the Set Theory model, this is the union of three o-sets.

A union of o-sets will constitute a feasible pit. For any block x,

the o-set or o-sets to which it is a member must include X (all the

blocks that must be mined if x is to be mined). The pit can only

become unfeasible if blocks are removed from an o-set, and

determining the unions of sets will not lead to the removal of any

blocks.

feasible pits

An illustration of an intersection of three pits is shown in

Figure 1. In the Set Theory model, this is the intersection of three

o-sets.

If block x is an element of o-sets A and B, then both A and B

must include X (all the blocks that must be mined if x is mined).

If X is a subset of both A and B, then it follows that that x must

include X. This is true for all X sets, for all incidents of x that are

members of both A and B. Accordingly A B (the intersection of

o-sets A and B) will constitute a pit that can be mined, as it

obeys the precedence rules of mining. The same can be said of

B C, C D, etc.

technically feasible (hybrid) pit.

400

technically feasible (hybrid) pit.

of more than or equal to m o-sets (A, B, C, D, etc)

represents a feasible pit

Principle 3 is explained fully for the case in which there are four

(A, B, C and D) o-sets, but the logic is extendable to any number

of o-sets. The explanation is included in Table 1.

m or more o-sets, is a subset of the set of blocks

which are members of m-1 or more o-sets

Principle 4 is explained fully for the case in which there are four

o-sets (A, B, C and D), but the logic is extendable to any number

of o-sets. The explanation is included in Table 2.

APPLIED TO CONDITIONALLY SIMULATED

MODELS

The real resource is the actual mineralisation that exists in the

ground, but which cannot be absolutely known by the modeller,

as the modeller only has samples of it, rather than absolute

knowledge of it. Conditional simulation seeks to generate n

equally probable models of the real resource, where n is

sufficiently large that the full set of simulations is representative

of the whole population of possible models. The models are

equally probable representations of the real resource, which at

the time of modelling is not absolutely known, it is only know

through the samples of it. One of the conditionally simulated

models will be the most representative of the real resource, but it

is not known which model this is. If n is sufficiently large, then it

is highly probable that at least one of the models will be

sufficiently representative of the real resource, such that in the

process of mining, the real resource should behave for all

economic and operational purposes, exactly like that model. The

chance of any of the models being the most representative of the

real resource is 1/n.

HYBRID PITS LINKING CONDITIONAL SIMULATION AND LERCHS-GROSSMANN THROUGH SET THEORY

TABLE 1

Explanation of Principle 3 as it relates to four sets (A, B, C and D).

Symbols

intersection. The intersection of two sets, A and B (A B), is the set of all elements that are common to both A and B.

union. The union of sets A and B (A B), is the set of all elements that are members of set A and/or set B.

All elements of A B C D (the union of sets A, B, C and D) must be a member or one or more o-sets.

The set of blocks that are members of one or more o-sets is equal to A B C D which, in accordance with Principle 2, is a feasible pit.

The set of blocks that are members of two or more o-sets

If x is a member of two or more o-sets, then it must be a member of one or more of the following:

A B A C A D B C B D C D

All members of one or more of the above sets are members of two or more o-sets. Accordingly, the set of all blocks that are members of two or more

o-sets is equal to:

(A B)

(A C)

(A D)

(B C)

(B D)

(C D)

With the application of both Principle 1 and 2, it follows that the set of all blocks that are members of two or more o-sets represents a feasible pit.

The set of blocks that are members of three or more o-sets

If x is a member of three or more o-sets, then it must be a member of one or more of the following:

A B C

A B D

A C D

B C D

All members of one or more of the above sets are members of three or more o-sets. Accordingly, the set of all blocks that are members of three or more

sets is equal to:

(A B C)

B D)

(A C D)

(B C D)

With the application of both Principle 1 and 2, it follows that the set of all blocks that are members of three or more o-sets represents a feasible pit.

The set of blocks that are members of four sets (all sets)

If x is a member of four o-sets, then it must be a member of A B C D. With the application of Principle 1, this represents a feasible pit.

TABLE 2

Explanation of Principle 4 as it relates to four sets (A, B, C and D).

Additional Symbol

(Also refer also to Table 1 for the explanation of symbols)

is a subset to. Indicates that the set on the right of the symbol contains (at least) all the elements that are members of the set on the left of the

symbol. For example G H means that all elements in set G can also be found in set H.

U

The Universal Set. This is the set of all elements that could be members of any of the sets under consideration. In the context of this discussion,

the Universal Set is the set of all blocks in the block model.

The set of blocks that is a member of one or more o-sets, is a subset of the set of blocks that are members of zero or more o-sets.

(A B C D) U

The set of blocks that is a member of two or more o-sets, is a subset of the set of blocks that are members of one or more o-sets.

(A B)

(A C)

(A D)

(B C)

(B D)

(C D)

(A B C D)

The set of blocks that is a member of three or more o-sets, is a subset of the set of blocks that are members of two or more o-sets.

(A B C)

(A B D)

(A C D)

(B C D)

(A B)

(A C)

(A D)

(B C)

(B D)

(C D)

The set of blocks that is a member of four (all) o-sets, is a subset of the set of blocks that are members of three or more o-sets.

(A B C D)

(A B C)

(A B D)

reserve and necessary stripping, such that the $ value of the pit is

maximised. If you generate an optimal pit for each of n models

and if n is sufficiently large, then any one of these pit

optimisations has a 1/n chance of being optimal for the real

resource.

If a pit is suboptimal for the real resource, then it must include

material that should not be mined and/or it must not include

material that should be mined. In other words, if the real resource

was absolutely known, and the pit optimisation proceeded on the

basis of a precise model of it, the pit would be different to, and

have a higher value than any of the suboptimal pits.

With the application of Principle 3 (established above), and if

(A C D)

(B C D)

or more o-sets, represents a feasible pit, which has m/n

probability of being a subset of the optimal pit for the real

resource.

With the application of Principle 2 (established above), and if

n is sufficiently large, the union of all o-sets is a feasible pit,

which is a superset to the optimal pit for the real resource.

With the application of Principle 4 (established above), the set

of blocks for m1, m 2, m 3, , m n, are progressively more

likely to be subsets of the optimal outline of the real resource.

Principle 4 also establishes that the pits represented by the set of

blocks for m1, m 2, m 3, , m n progressively nest (they are

each supersets to the next).

401

With reference to the above discussion, a Hybrid Pit will now be

defined:

H-Pit(m) is the set of all blocks that are members of m or more

o-sets. The set represents a feasible pit, which has m/n

probability of being a subset of the optimal pit for the real

resource.

Where:

n

is number of o-pits

You can produce a pit outline that is feasible, by finding all

blocks that are members of any of the original pits. This is

referred to as H-Pit(1), meaning that it includes all blocks that

are members of one or more o-pits. If n is sufficiently large, this

pit will almost certainly include the pit outline, which would be

optimal for the real resource. Such a pit provides an outer bound

for the optimal outline.

You can produce a pit outline that is feasible, by finding all

blocks that are members of all of the original pits. This is

referred to as H-Pit(n), meaning that it includes all blocks that

are members of all o-pits. If n is sufficiently large, the resulting

outline will almost certainly be a subset of the optimal outline for

the real resource, and you can be highly confident that H-Pit(n)

will not exceed the boundaries of the optimal outline for the real

resource. Such a pit provides an inner bound for the optimal

outline for the real resource.

The inner-bound pit H-Pit(n) may be used as a type of High

Confidence Reserve pit. You can be highly confident that this pit

will not over-mine the real resource. By the time you have mined

the High Confidence Reserve pit, you will have better geological

data available for the remaining resource, and will be in a much

better position to determine the direction in which to expand the

pit. This is an example of the mechanism by which the Hybrid

Pits technique can be used as design guides to allow a degree of

risk avoidance, associated with the higher uncertainty in early

times.

increases:

1.

2.

the probability that it does not over-mine the optimal pit for

the real resource increases.

to determine pit shapes that exhibit a known and acceptable

compromise between certainty (risk reduction) and size (reserve

maximisation).

CONDITIONALLY SIMULATED MODEL

Methodology of the trial

In order to check the theory of Hybrid Pits, a block model related

to a gold deposit was selected. Based on this original model, five

separate block models were created using a simulation program.

For normal modelling purposes, five simulations are not

adequate, but five are adequate for the purposes of testing the

mathematical propositions put forward in this paper.

Each of these simulated models has a chance to represent a

possible real resource. In the next step, Whittle software was

utilised to perform optimisation analysis on simulated models. In

order to be consistent in optimisation, the same parameters were

applied in analysis. The optimised pit shells were then exported

to GEMS software where they were used to modify new

attributes within block models. The values of these attributes

were then exported into spreadsheets with their block numbers.

Using the theory explained above, a pit-list file for Hybrid Pits

was created. This pit list then was imported into Whittle and

there a cash flow analysis was performed for each simulated

model and Hybrid-Pits.

Figure 3 shows the procedures of this experiment.

One of the impacts of geological uncertainty is that it leads to

uncertainty as to the shape and size of the final pit. With the

application of the Hybrid Pit approach, as is discussed above:

you can be highly confident that the optimal pit for the real

resource will be a superset to H-Pit(1); and

Simulation

Optimisation

analysis

Pit shells exported

to GEMS

Attribute

modification

you can be highly confident that the optimal pit for the real

resource will be a subset to H-Pit(n).

The area bounded by H-Pit(1) and H-Pit(n) represents the area

in which the optimal outline for the real resource can exist. If the

area is large, it indicates that the orebody model variance, as

expressed in the simulations, leads to a high degree of

uncertainty as to the position of the optimal pit boundary. If the

area is small, it indicates that there is a low degree of uncertainty

as to the position of the optimal pit boundary.

The above principles can be generalised as follows:

Hybrid-Pit

creation

Cash Flow

analysis

being a superset to H-Pit(m) is m/n.

Conclusion

be applied. It means that there is a quantifiable degree of

402

HYBRID PITS LINKING CONDITIONAL SIMULATION AND LERCHS-GROSSMANN THROUGH SET THEORY

Simulation

the pits bench by bench, and section by section. It was possible

to verify that there was no violation of the nesting rule by this

method.

The test to determine whether any pit slope constraints were

violated by the hybrid pits was performed with a modified

version of the Whittle Mining Width module. The module

re-applies the pit slope constraint to each shell and changes block

allocation in the event that a pit slope constraint is violated. By

running the hybrid pits through this module it was possible to

verify that no pit slope constraints were violated.

block model that we had, we applied the following methodology

to create simulated block model. Using a random generator, a

normal distribution was applied to the original block model with

the following parameters:

= Original _ Grade

= 0.3 Original _ Grade

Using this method five different simulated block models were

created. The grades were controlled in order to avoid entering

into the negative territory. All simulated models have the same

origin and block size.

The five original optimal pits and the five Hybrid Pits were all

evaluated against the five simulated models, giving a total of fifty

evaluations. The results are summarised in Table 4. In the table,

Pit 1 is the pit which is optimal for Simulation 1; Pit 2 is the pit

which is optimal for Simulation 2, etc.

As is to be expected, for each of the simulations, the pit which

performs best is the corresponding original optimal pit.

H-Pit(5) is the inner bound pit. This can be used as a high

confidence reserve pit, in that you can be highly confident that

the optimal pit for the real resource will be a superset to H-Pit(5).

H-Pit(1) is the outer bound pit. You can be highly confident

that the optimal pit for the real reserve does not extend beyond

the perimeter of H-Pit(1).

Refer to the section Projected Application of Hybrid Pits for a

discussion of the intended interpretation and application of these

results.

Figure 4 shows the spatial relationship between H-Pit(1) and

H-Pit(5) in an elevation view. As can be seen the effect of the

variance in the model, as expressed in the five simulations, leads

to uncertainty as to the position of the pit wall on the right hand

side of the diagram, as well as some minor uncertainty as to the

pit wall position on the left hand side.

Table 4 also provides:

Optimisation analysis

Optimisation analysis was performed on models using Whittle

3.2. The same parameters were applied on each analysis. Table 3

shows the parameters that were used for this analysis.

Based on this analysis, five optimal pit were extracted into

GEMS. Using GEMS, some new attributes were defined and then

modified by these optimal pits. These attributes actually

contained a value of 1 or 0 that defined whether the related cell is

part of the pit or not.

The calculation has been done on the attribute explained above to

create hybrid pits.

The mathematics indicated that the hybrid pits would be

technically feasible they would nest and they would not violate

pit slope constraints. The authors found that the trial supported

this.

TABLE 3

application of the Dimitrakopoulos (2003) technique pit

number two could be chosen as a design pit, as it provides

the highest mean value (meaning that it is the most likely to

return the highest value) of all the o-pits.

Parameter

Value

Block size

10*10*8

63 296

Gold price

380 $/oz

Mining cost

1 $/tonne

Processing cost

22 $/tonne

Mining recovery

95%

Processing recovery

95%

against the five simulated models. In this trial H-Pit(2)

produced the highest average value. It is interesting that,

evaluated in this way, an H-Pit outperforms all of the o-pits

in this trial. However, it is not a central aspect of this paper,

and the authors have not attempted to determine theoretically

whether this may always be the case.

TABLE 4

Summary results of the Hybrid Pit trial.

Pit 1

Pit 2

Pit 3

Pit 4

Pit 5

H-Pit(5)

H-Pit(4)

H-Pit(3)

H-Pit(2)

H-Pit(1)

mT

19.5

20.5

19.3

20.3

20.3

18.2

19.6

20.2

20.6

21.3

$'000's

Pit 1

Pit 2

Pit 3

Pit 4

Pit 5

H-Pit(5)

H-Pit(4)

H-Pit(3)

H-Pit(2)

H-Pit(1)

Sim 1

27 098

25 943

25 770

25 911

25 928

25 157

25 951

26 479

26 578

26 486

Sim 2

25 294

26 589

25 091

25 387

25 291

24 106

25 213

25 955

26 164

26 214

Sim 3

24 702

24 972

26 218

24 851

25 088

24 219

24 872

25 565

25 689

25 487

26 857

Sim 4

25 756

26 054

25 973

27 365

25 669

24 707

25 895

26 602

26 756

Sim 5

23 509

23 871

23 666

23 884

25 240

22 691

23 570

24 386

24 745

24 766

Ave

25 272

25 486

25 344

25 480

25 443

24 176

25 100

25 797

25 986

25 962

403

and H-Pit(1).

CONCLUSIONS

Considering uncertainties presented in any geological models

this paper showed that the Hybrid Pits technique leads to the

creation of pit outlines with quantifiable probability

characteristics, with respect to their spatial relationship to the

optimal pit for the real resource. The Hybrid Pits can be used as

design guides to allow a quantifiable degree of risk avoidance,

associated with the higher uncertainty in early stages of a mine

development.

The validity of the Hybrid Pits technique is supported by the

set theory model explained in this paper, and by the trial of the

technique on a small data set. The pits were found to obey the pit

slope constraints, so they are technically feasible. The pits were

also found to nest, which is an inherent quality of the pits if they

are to conform to the theory presented in this paper.

The trial produced Hybrid Pits which were quite similar in

terms of overall size. It is not known on the basis of this sample

of one, whether this is common, or whether it is more common

for the gap between H-Pit(n) and H-Pit(1) to be great. The size of

404

but it will also depend on a great many other economic,

geotechnical and geological factors.

The operations required to complete the trial were found to be

relatively straightforward, though large in number. For this very

small trial, there were five pit optimisations performed, and fifty

life-of-mine schedules, with a good deal of associated data

manipulation in Whittle, GEMS and Excel. To repeat the exact

same exercise for a family of 25 simulated models, would require

only 25 pit optimisations, but 1250 economic evaluations.

Generally speaking, the trial produced results which were in

line with the expectations of the authors. There was one pleasant

surprise that when evaluated against the family of simulated

models, one of the Hybrid Pits outperformed all the original

optimal pits. Prior to the trial, the authors were unable to form a

hypothesis as to whether Hybrid Pits would outperform original

Optimal Pits in this manner, but in this one case, it was found to

be so. Only experience will tell whether it is a common or an

uncommon outcome.

REFERENCES

Dimitrakopoulos, R, 2003. Personal communication. November.

Dimitrakopoulos, R, Farrelly C T, Godoy, M, 2001. Id rather be

approximately right than precisely wrong: grade uncertainty, risk

effects and decision making in open pit design, in Proceedings

Strategic Mine Planning Conference, pp 35-42 (The Australasian

Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).

Lerchs, H, Grossmann, I F, 1965. Optimum design of open pit mines, The

Canadian Mining and Metallurgical Bulletin, 58(January):47-54.

Van Brunt, B H, Rossi, M E, 1997. Optimising conditionally simulated

orebodies with Whittle 4D, in Proceedings Optimizing with Whittle

Conference, pp 119-128 (Whittle Programming: Vancouver BC).

Van Brunt, B H, Rossi, M E, 1999, Mine planning under uncertainty

constraints, in Proceedings Optimizing with Whittle: Strategic Mine

Planning Conference, pp 181-196 (Whittle Programming: Vancouver

BC).

- 1-s2.0-0306261980900458-mainUploaded byResearcherz
- Whittle Introduction TutorialUploaded bycsemarcial
- Operations and Finance InterfaceUploaded byPratik Bacche
- Man Simulation 1Uploaded bykushkim
- PAPER265.PDFUploaded byNestor Sigala
- DocumentASSFUploaded byRiza Pahlevi Djoe
- chp7_2Uploaded byFery Fahmi
- New Microsoft Office PowerPoint PresentationUploaded byNabila Sadia
- Asm MethodUploaded byMarius Botezatu
- estimarea incertitudinii microbiologieUploaded byCatalina Ciocan
- CadUploaded byPratik Kalkal
- A Newton Optimal Power Flow Program for Ontario Hydro EMSUploaded byFlores Jesus
- runallUploaded byGingramF
- Sprengel FordUploaded bylumas
- Medical Diagnosis ClassificationUploaded byCS & IT
- Before Optimization_ Design Space ExplorationUploaded bymivano
- Effect of Non Uniformity Factors and Assignment Factors on Errors in Charge Simulation Method With Point Charge ModelUploaded byjalnic_1
- An Adaptive Differential Evolution Algorithm for Reactive Power DispatchUploaded byIJORAT
- Operation ResearchUploaded bySarlaJaiswal
- h5. PBSD_Presentation.pdfUploaded byTabish Izhar
- S-44 for DummiesUploaded bygokeda6838
- Petex GAP Product-Info Sep2015Uploaded bytsanshine
- Framework for a selection of custom instructions for Ht-MPSoC in area-performance aware manner.pdfUploaded byBoppidiSrikanth
- XV Poster 03Uploaded byjiaolei9848
- 21Uploaded byRavish Yadav
- Review of Multi-factor Capacity-holistic Decision Process-2007Uploaded byMauro MLR
- PaperUploaded byKuber Bogati
- A Note on'a New Approach for Solving Intuitionistic Fuzzy Transportation Problem of Type-2'Uploaded byP.SENTHIL KUMAR
- Math for MLUploaded byAriyanto
- Strut-And-Tie Models for DesignUploaded byadriano4850

- APG Civil 2013 3D TOC SampleUploaded byFeigyl Miro
- Surface miningUploaded byneknew
- MechanicalUploaded byneknew
- Chemical Engineering.xlsxUploaded byneknew
- S4_14_10_Sat_Sansar_Singh.pdfUploaded byneknew
- Chemical EngineeringUploaded byneknew
- Computer ScienceUploaded byneknew
- ConcretoUploaded byneknew
- MiningUploaded byneknew
- S4_14_30_Eduardo_da_Silva.pdfUploaded byneknew
- S2_12_30_Lorrie_Fava.pdfUploaded byneknew
- S2_12_10_Mario_Pacheco.pdfUploaded byneknew
- S2_11_30_Marcelo_Navarrete.pdfUploaded byneknew
- S2!11!10 Ignacio VelezUploaded byJear Anpa
- S2_12_30_Lorrie_Fava.pdfUploaded byneknew
- S2_12_10_Mario_Pacheco.pdfUploaded byneknew
- S2_11_30_Marcelo_Navarrete.pdfUploaded byneknew
- Establishing a new metric for mineral.pdfUploaded byneknew
- Effects of mineral price models on.pdfUploaded byneknew
- A back to basics approach to mining strategy formulation.pdfUploaded byneknew
- 2011SMEBookCatalog.pdfUploaded byneknew
- The Strategic Dilemma for Mineral Engineering.pdfUploaded byneknew
- Thinking Outside the Lease – Towards a Strategic View of.pdfUploaded byneknew
- Why accounting for uncertainty and risk can improve final.pdfUploaded byneknew
- pki04Uploaded byneknew
- pki014Uploaded byneknew
- 019.pdfUploaded byneknew
- 017.pdfUploaded byneknew

- MotorolaH500 Bt SlušalicaUploaded bykarabaja
- Electro-surgery in Periodontal TherapyUploaded bydileep9002392
- SWIZ DocumentationUploaded byorleansmartinez
- Heat Transfer Phenomena Applications i to 12Uploaded byraymon6666
- Telit TinyOnePro 868MHz Terminal User Guide r3Uploaded byVoicu Stanese
- water treatment plant-2Uploaded bySai Swaroop
- Lenovo S145 Hardware Maintenance ManualUploaded byVishalYadav
- CDR 07-054Uploaded bydiaccessltd_17172961
- Likewise Enterprise Version 4.0 Macintosh Deployment GuideUploaded byLikewise Software
- Facebook JavascriptUploaded byleo3366
- PhD Dessertation Dr. Aamir HasanUploaded byadnan fazil
- Pasolink V4 v1.3.pdfUploaded byDragan Stanic
- 60581_02Uploaded bytituxy89
- AatUploaded bySudung Situmorang
- Speech and Audio Signal Processing ECE554 -Lec - 3 Waveform Coding v2.0Uploaded byNikesh Bajaj
- West Progress Report 27th Feb 15Uploaded byAkshata Ghorpade
- Library Management System Project for MCAUploaded bykhushi107
- physics_u1_specimen_qp.pdfUploaded bywill bell
- EE3102 Lab Manual 5-20-10Uploaded byEdward Conal
- PCAB CFY 2014 2015 List of ContractorsUploaded byRobert Ramirez
- AWRUploaded byChetan Pawar
- ReadMeUploaded byaldebaranlp
- Qp It 22 May2010 DbmsUploaded byShalini Katarapu
- Etendering HelpUploaded byYogesh Yadav
- 3 WCDMA RNP Fundamental ISSUE1.0.pptUploaded byVijay Verma
- Quad-66CDUploaded byKen Yap
- 1107E018A120025_3P20KW.pdfUploaded byHR
- 1912 Electrical WorkerUploaded bycharlesc5746
- Key Management Guidance v1 3Uploaded byMartin Blom
- Review on 2G, 3G and 4G Radio Network PlanningUploaded byr377y49un9